A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES

A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004
Go to Federal Manuals Table of Contents - Go to Procedures Table of Contents

Chapter Five: Jury Deliberations

5.6     Verdicts
            A. In General
            B. Written Verdict Controls
            C. Partial Verdicts
            D. Forms of Special Verdicts
            E. Coerced Verdict

A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004

A. Verdicts: In General

An agreement among jurors becomes a final verdict only after it has been returned in open court and recorded. United States v. Kanahele, 951 F. Supp. 945, 946 (D. Haw. 1997), citing Rice v. Wood, 44 F.3d 1396, 1402 (9th Cir. 1995), vacated in part on reh'g en banc on other grounds, 77 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 1996).

A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004

B. Verdicts: Written Verdict Controls

When a court misreads a written verdict, the written verdict controls, even if the jurors failed to correct the trial court's misreading. It is unreasonable to expect the jurors to correct the court, or to conclude by their silence their assent to the misread verdict. United States v. Boone, 951 F.2d 1526, 1532-33 (9th Cir. 1991).

A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004

C. Verdicts: Partial Verdicts

In a case involving multiple defendants and/or multiple counts, a jury may return verdicts on some counts and deadlock on others. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 31(b). Juries "should be neither encouraged nor discouraged to return a partial verdict but should understand their options, especially when they have reached a stage in their deliberations at which they may well wish to report a partial verdict as to some counts or some defendants." United States v. Dolah, 245 F.3d 98, 108 (2d Cir. 2001) (citing United States v. DiLapi, 651 F.2d 140, 147 (2d Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 938 (1982). "The danger inherent in taking a partial verdict is the premature conversion of a tentative jury vote into an irrevocable one." United States v. Benedict, 95 F.3d 17, 19 (8th Cir. 1996) (citing United States v. Wheeler, 802 F.2d 778, 781 (5th Cir. 1986)).

The trial court has broad discretion to question a potentially deadlocked jury about its ability to reach a partial verdict. See United States v. Armstrong, 654 F.2d 1328, 1333 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982); United States v. Kanahele, 951 F. Supp. 945, 947 (D. Haw. 1996).

A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004

D. Verdicts: Forms of Special Verdicts

1. Civil

The court has wide discretion to use a variety of forms of verdict. Fed. R. Civ. P. 49(a). See also Zhang v. American Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1031-32 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing various forms of verdict), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 1602 (2004). Before closing arguments, the form of the verdict should be decided so that counsel can effectively structure their final arguments. This also enables the court to tailor its instructions. Landes Constr. Co. v. Royal Bank of Can., 833 F.2d 1365, 1374 (9th Cir. 1987); see also MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 11.633 (Fed. Jud. Center, 4th ed. 2004) (discussing the benefits of having counsel draft and submit proposed verdict forms at the pretrial conference).

2. Criminal

"Although there is no per se prohibition '[a]s a rule, special verdicts in criminal trials are not favored.'" United States v. Reed, 147 F.3d 1178, 1180 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting United States v. O'Looney, 544 F.2d 385, 392 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1023 (1976)).

"Exceptions to the general rule disfavoring special verdicts in criminal cases have been expanded and approved in an increasing number of circumstances." Reed, 147 F.3d at 1180 (citing numerous cases in which special verdicts have been upheld). Special verdict forms are often necessary to satisfy the requirements of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) and United States v. Buckland, 289 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2002) (en banc).

A MANUAL OF JURY TRIAL PROCEDURES - 2004

E. Verdicts: Coerced Verdict

Coerced verdicts require a new trial. Rinehart v. Wedge, 943 F.2d 1158, 1160 (9th Cir. 1991) (affirming the grant of a new trial where the court recalculated a general verdict, and polled the jury to ratify the recalculated verdict, thereby intruding on the jury's deliberative process and coercing the verdict). See also § 5.4.